DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant’s response filed on August 25, 2026. As set forth therein, claims 9-12, 15, 16, and 18-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The Applicant maintains that the combination of Faccin and Baskaran fails to disclose “a request for selection of one or more allowed network slices of a wireless device, wherein the request for selection indicates that an access of the wireless device to the overlay network is via an underlay network.” In addition, the Applicant states even assuming that both Faccin and Baskaran disclose of both 3GPP and non-3GPP network access to the AMF” and further assuming that “Faccin disclose[s] specifying a network slice for the user equipment,” it does not follow that these references would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “query” of Faccin so that such query would indicate “than an access of the wireless device to the overlay network is via an underlay network.”
The Examiner notes that with respect to Faccin, in paragraph [0069] the AMF queries the NSSF with requested NSSAI, default configured NSSAI indication, mapping of requested NSSAI to HPLMN S-NSSAIs, the subscribed S-NSSAIs any allowed NSSAI it might have for the other Access Type, PLMN ID of the SUPI and UE’s current tracking areas . In paragraph [0071], Faccin follows this by noting that the NSSF verifies which S-NSSAI(s) are permitted and the NSSSF selects the Network Slice instance(s) to serve the UE. Faccin further states in this paragraph that the NSSF determines the target AMF set to be used to service the UE or a list of AMF(s).
As set forth in the Office Action, the ‘access type’ can be indicated and the access type may be either 3GPP access or non-3GPP access. As explained in paragraph [0186] the UE may send a registration complete message to the AMF when it has successfully updated itself after receiving the configured NSSAI for the serving PLMN. Faccin discloses that if a new 5G-GUTI was assigned, then the UE may pass the new 5G—GUTI to its 3GPP access’ lower layer when a lower layer (either 3GPP access or non-2GPP access) indicates to the UE’s RM layer that the registration complete message has been successfully transferred.
The Examiner finds that based on the above, Faccin specifically shows that the UE accesses two different networks including both 3GPP and non-3GPP networks and can send messages through them for another network.
As noted by the Applicant and the Examiner in the previous office action, it was acknowledged that the initial request did not specifically indicate that an access of the wireless device to the overlay network is via an underlay network, however, the Examiner finds that the initial query in Faccin (see paragraph [0069]) includes several indications including any allowed NSSAI it might have for other Access Types. Thus, the initial request may include a specific request for access via another network. This teaching is followed up with paragraph [0071] in which the NSSF may return a target AMF set to be used to service the UE or a list of candidate AMF(s).
The Examiner finds that based on the teaching of Faccin, it would have been obvious to include a request for a second network (i.e. access the first network via a second network). The Examiner relied on Baskaran to show that it was known to send a specific request message to a non-3GPP access network which is different than the standard 3GPP access network. That is, sending a specific request regarding a network was known in the prior art. Thus, the Examiner finds that since a specific request regarding a network can be included in a query, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Faccin to specifically indicate a request via a secondary network. As set forth above, Faccin already provides access to multiple different networks by the same UE.
Therefore, the Examiner finds that the combination of Faccin and Baskaran disclose that it would have been obvious to include in the request, information regarding an access of the wireless device to the overlay network is via an underlay network.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faccin et al. US Patent Pub. 2021/0297859 in view of Baskaran et al. US Patent Pub. 2020/0014535.
Regarding claim 1:
A method comprising:
Faccin is directed to a method performed by a network server for authorizing access to network slices that are associated with a service provided by an external provider for access and use by a user equipment device connected to a network. See paragraph [0003].
sending, by an access and mobility management function (AMF) of an overlay network, to a network slice selection function (NSSF), a request for selection of one or more allowed network slices of a wireless device,
Faccin discloses in paragraph [0065], “[w]hen the UE context in the AMF does not yet include an Allowed NSSAI [Network Slide Selection Assistance Information] for the corresponding Access Type, the AMF queries the NSSF”. See also paragraphs [0071 and 0228]. Thus, the AMF queries a NSSF for allowed network slices.
As set further set forth in paragraph [0065], the subscribed NSSAI are also verified for the UE. See also paragraphs [0003] which states that the system will “send[] to the user equipment device the allowed network slice selection assistance information.” See also paragraph [0005].
wherein the request for selection indicates that an access of the wireless device to the overlay network is via an underlay network; and
Faccin discloses in paragraph [0069], “[w]hen required as described above, the AMF needs to query the NSSF and the following is performed: The AMF queries the NSSF, with Requested NSSAI”. See also paragraph [0073], “[t]he NSSF determines the Allowed NSSAI(s) for the applicable Access Type”. Thus the ‘access type’ (i.e. indication of the network access type) can be indicated as set forth in paragraph [0183], either 3GPP access or non-3GPP access which is an access of the wireless device to an overlay network via an underlay network (Faccin discloses that the access is a lower layer access). See also paragraphs [0076] and [0156] which discloses that the UE is registered over a non-3GPP access. See also paragraph [0176].
The Examiner notes that Faccin discloses of access to both a 3GPP system and a non-3GPP system (second network). See paragraph [0119] which discloses that the AMF which belongs to a PLMN can have 3GPP and non-3GPP access. Thus, the AMF is of an overlay network via a first network access and the second network access is the underlay network. See also paragraphs [0069-0072].
The Examiner notes that Faccin disclose of access through a second network and thus the selection indicates that an access is via an underlay network via access type.
Nonetheless, to the extent it is considered that the request does not indicate that an access type is via an underlay network, the Examiner finds that it was well known indicate access via an underlay or at least a secondary type of network. For example, Baskaran, as set forth in paragraph [0043] discloses of access via a non-3GPP access network which is a different communication mode from the standard 3GPP (overlay). Thus, Baskaran shows that it was known to access the AMF via an alternative access network (e.g. non-3GPP) rather than via a 3GPP access network. See also paragraphs [0048-0050] of Baskaran.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to indicate access to the overlay network via an underlay network. The Examiner finds that both Faccin and Baskaran disclose of both 3GPP and non-3GPP network access to the AMF. In addition, Faccin disclose of specifying a network slice for the user equipment. Since Faccin discloses that it was known to access the network via e.g. a second network (non-3GPP) as well as the registration via a second network access, then a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that it would have also been obvious to indicate access the network using an underlay network. For example, Baskaran discloses it was known to request access to the AMF via a non-3GPP network for the purpose of registration. Therefore, the teachings represents known methods and would have yielded a predictable result to a person of ordinary skill in the art since Baskaran discloses of a method of accessing underlay network.
receiving, by the AMF from the NSSF, one or more network slice identifiers of the one or more allowed network slices for the access of the wireless device to the overlay network via the underlay network.
Faccin discloses in paragraph [0074], “[t]he NSSF returns to the current AMF the Allowed NSSAI for the applicable Access Type”. See also paragraph [0230]. As set forth above, the combination of Faccin and Baskaran disclose access the overlay network via the underlying network. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as set forth above, that the access to the network slices is via the underlay network. As explained by Baskaran, the UE access the network via an underlay network. See paragraphs [0048 and 0052-0053] of Baskaran.
Regarding claim 2:
The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, by the AMF from the wireless device via a non-3GPP interwork function (N3IWF), a registration request message.
Faccin as disclosed in paragraph [0109] of performing an initial registration. See also paragraphs [0125] and [0183] and Figure 3. While Faccin discloses of registration, Faccin does not specifically disclose of sending via a non-3GPP interwork function, a registration message.
Nonetheless, Baskaran as set forth in paragraph [0048] discloses the UE sending a registration message to the non-3GPP AN. Baskaran also discloses that the non-3GPP AN forwards the message to the N3IWF (see paragraph [0052]) and the N3IWF forwards the registration message to the AMF (paragraph [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to send a registration request message via a non-3GPP internetwork function. As set forth by Baskaran, the N3IWF enables registration of the NG UE through the non-3GPP. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use a N3IWF so that the UE can register via a non-3GPP network. As explained above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to identify an underlaying network and thus, further using a N3IWF to transmit via an underlay network using the above known methods would have yielded a predictable result to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3:
The method of claim 2, wherein the registration request message indicates the access of the wireless device to the overlay network via the underlay network.
As set forth above, Baskaran as set forth in paragraph [0048] discloses the UE sending a registration message to the non-3GPP AN. Baskaran discloses that the non-3GPP AN forwards the message to the N3IWF (see paragraph [0052]) and the N3IWF forwards the registration message to the AMF (paragraph [0053]). As disclosed by Faccin the AMF is in the overlay network. See paragraphs [0071 and 0228].
See also paragraph [0183] of Faccin which discloses of registration via a lower layer.
Regarding claim 4:
The method of claim 2, wherein the registration request message comprises an identifier of the underlay network or an underlay access type indication.
See paragraph [0048] of Baskaran which discloses that the registration request via a non-3GPP (underlay network) includes a security key set identifier (SKSI), a subscriber parameter identifier (SUPI), a network type (NT), a UE security capabilities (Sec_Cap), and a UE key derivation function capabilities (KDF_Cap). See also paragraph [0050] which discloses the SUPI may be a network access identifier (NAI) or an international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI). The NT indicates a more preferable access network used for transmission of the registration request message. See also paragraph [0053]
Regarding claim 5:
The method of claim 2, further comprising sending, by the AMF to the wireless device, via the N3IWF, a registration accept message.
Faccin discloses that it was known to receive a registration accept message. See step 21 in Figure 3 and paragraph [0171].
In addition, Baskaran, as set forth above in claim 2, further discloses of sending a registration response message including the success message to the UE. As set forth in Figure 2, the message is sent via the N3IWF. See also paragraphs [0060-0063].
As set forth above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to send the message via the N3IWF.
Regarding claim 11:
An access and mobility management function (AMF) of an overlay network comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the AMF to:
See paragraphs [0006-0007] which disclose the methods performed by a processor and the use of processor-executable instructions to perform the methods. See also paragraphs [0243-0245].
The Examiner notes that Faccin discloses of access to both a 3GPP system and a non-3GPP system. See paragraph [0119] which discloses that the AMF which belongs to a PLMN can have 3GPP and non-3GPP access. Thus, the AMF is of an overlay network. See also paragraphs [0069-0072].
send to a network slice selection function (NSSF), a request for selection of one or more allowed network slices of a wireless device,
Faccin discloses in paragraph [0065], “[w]hen the UE context in the AMF does not yet include an Allowed NSSAI [Network Slide Selection Assistance Information] for the corresponding Access Type, the AMF queries the NSSF”. See also paragraphs [0071 and 0228]. Thus, the AMF queries a NSSF for allowed network slices. As set further set forth in paragraph [0065], the subscribed NSSAI are also verified for the UE. See also paragraphs [0003] which states that the system will “send[] to the user equipment device the allowed network slice selection assistance information.” See also paragraph [0005].
wherein the request for selection indicates that an access of the wireless device to the overlay network is via an underlay network; and
Faccin discloses in paragraph [0069], “[w]hen required as described above, the AMF needs to query the NSSF and the following is performed: The AMF queries the NSSF, with Requested NSSAI”. See also paragraph [0073], “[t]he NSSF determines the Allowed NSSAI(s) for the applicable Access Type”. Thus the access type can be as set forth in paragraph [0183], either 3GPP access or non-3GPP access which is an access of the wireless device to an overlay network via an underlay network (Faccin discloses that the access is a lower layer access). See also paragraphs [0076] and [0156] which discloses that the UE is registered over a non-3GPP access. See also paragraph [0176].
The Examiner notes that Faccin discloses of access to both a 3GPP system and a non-3GPP system (second network). See paragraph [0119] which discloses that the AMF which belongs to a PLMN can have 3GPP and non-3GPP access. Thus, the AMF is of an overlay network via a first network access and the second network access is the underlay network. See also paragraphs [0069-0072].
The Examiner notes that Faccin disclose of access through a second network and thus the selection indicates that an access is via an underlay network.
Nonetheless, to the extent it is considered that the request does not indicate that an access type is via an underlay network, the Examiner finds that it was well known indicate access via an underlay or at least a secondary type of network. For example, Baskaran, as set forth in paragraph [0043] discloses of access via a non-3GPP access network which is a different communication mode from the standard 3GPP (overlay). Thus, Baskaran shows that it was known to access the AMF via an alternative access network (e.g. non-3GPP) rather than via a 3GPP access network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to indicate access to the overlay network via an underlay network. The Examiner finds that both Faccin and Baskaran disclose of both 3GPP and non-3GPP network access to the AMF. In addition, Faccin disclose of specifying a network slice for the user equipment. Since Faccin discloses that it was known to access the network via e.g. a second network (non-3GPP) as well as the registration via a second network access, then a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that it would have also been obvious to indicate access the network using an underlay network. For example, Baskaran discloses it was known to request access to the AMF via a non-3GPP network for the purpose of registration. Therefore, the teachings represents known methods and would have yielded a predictable result to a person of ordinary skill in the art since Baskaran discloses of a method of accessing underlay network.
receive, from the NSSF, one or more network slice identifiers of the one or more allowed network slices for the access of the wireless device to the overlay network via the underlay network.
Faccin discloses in paragraph [0074], “[t]he NSSF returns to the current AMF the Allowed NSSAI for the applicable Access Type”. See also paragraph [0230]. As set forth above, the combination of Faccin and Baskaran disclose access the overlay network via the underlying network. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as set forth above, that the access to the network slices is via the underlay network. As explained by Baskaran, the UE access the network via an underlay network. See paragraphs [0048 and 0052-0053] of Baskaran.
Regarding claim 12:
The AMF of claim 11, wherein the instructions further cause the AMF to receive, from the wireless device via a non-3GPP interworking function (N3IWF), a registration request message.
Faccin as disclosed in paragraph [0109] of performing an initial registration. See also paragraphs [0125] and [0183] and Figure 3. While Faccin discloses of registration, Faccin does not specifically disclose of sending via a non-3GPP interwork function, a registration message.
Nonetheless, Baskaran as set forth in paragraph [0048] discloses the UE sending a registration message to the non-3GPP AN. Baskaran also discloses that the non-3GPP AN forwards the message to the N3IWF (see paragraph [0052]) and the N3IWF forwards the registration message to the AMF (paragraph [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to send a registration request message via a non-3GPP internetwork function. As set forth by Baskaran, the N3IWF enables registration of the NG UE through the non-3GPP. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use a N3IWF so that the UE can register via a non-3GPP network. As explained above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to identify an underlaying network and thus, further using a N3IWF to transmit via an underlay network using the above known methods would have yielded a predictable result to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13:
The AMF of claim 12, wherein the registration request message indicates the access of the wireless device to the overlay network via the underlay network.
As set forth above, Baskaran as set forth in paragraph [0048] discloses the UE sending a registration message to the non-3GPP AN. Baskaran discloses that the non-3GPP AN forwards the message to the N3IWF (see paragraph [0052]) and the N3IWF forwards the registration message to the AMF (paragraph [0053]). As disclosed by Faccin the AMF is in the overlay network. See paragraphs [0071 and 0228].
See also paragraph [0183] of Faccin which discloses of registration via a lower layer.
Regarding claim 14:
The AMF of claim 12, wherein the registration request message comprises an identifier of the underlay network or an underlay access type indication.
See paragraph [0048] of Baskaran which discloses that the registration request via a non-3GPP (underlay network) includes a security key set identifier (SKSI), a subscriber parameter identifier (SUPI), a network type (NT), a UE security capabilities (Sec_Cap), and a UE key derivation function capabilities (KDF_Cap). See also paragraph [0050] which discloses the SUPI may be a network access identifier (NAI) or an international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI). The NT indicates a more preferable access network used for transmission of the registration request message. See also paragraph [0053]
Regarding claim 15:
The AMF of claim 12, wherein the instructions further cause the AMF to send, to the wireless device, via the N3IWF, a registration accept message.
Faccin discloses that it was known to receive a registration accept message. See step 21 in Figure 3 and paragraph [0171].
In addition, Baskaran, as set forth above in claim 2, further discloses of sending a registration response message including the success message to the UE. As set forth in Figure 2, the message is sent via the N3IWF. See also paragraphs [0060-0063].
As set forth above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to send the message via the N3IWF.
Regarding claim 20:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
See paragraphs [0006-0007] which discloses the methods performed by a processor and the use of processor-executable instructions to perform the methods. See also paragraphs [0243-0245].
send, by an access and mobility management function (AMF) of an overlay network, to a network slice selection function (NSSF), a request for selection of one or more allowed network slices of a wireless device,
Faccin discloses in paragraph [0065], “[w]hen the UE context in the AMF does not yet include an Allowed NSSAI [Network Slide Selection Assistance Information] for the corresponding Access Type, the AMF queries the NSSF”. See also paragraphs [0071 and 0228]. Thus, the AMF queries a NSSF for allowed network slices. As set further set forth in paragraph [0065], the subscribed NSSAI are also verified for the UE. See also paragraphs [0003] which states that the system will “send[] to the user equipment device the allowed network slice selection assistance information.” See also paragraph [0005].
The Examiner notes that Faccin discloses of access to both a 3GPP system and a non-3GPP system. See paragraph [0119] which discloses that the AMF which belongs to a PLMN can have 3GPP and non-3GPP access. Thus, the AMF is of an overlay network. See also paragraphs [0069-0072].
wherein the request for selection indicates that an access of the wireless device to the overlay network is via an underlay network; and
Faccin discloses in paragraph [0069], “[w]hen required as described above, the AMF needs to query the NSSF and the following is performed: The AMF queries the NSSF, with Requested NSSAI”. See also paragraph [0073], “[t]he NSSF determines the Allowed NSSAI(s) for the applicable Access Type”. Thus the access type can be as set forth in paragraph [0183], either 3GPP access or non-3GPP access which is an access of the wireless device to an overlay network via an underlay network (Faccin discloses that the access is a lower layer access). See also paragraphs [0076] and [0156] which discloses that the UE is registered over a non-3GPP access. See also paragraph [0176].
The Examiner notes that Faccin discloses of access to both a 3GPP system and a non-3GPP system (second network). See paragraph [0119] which discloses that the AMF which belongs to a PLMN can have 3GPP and non-3GPP access. Thus, the AMF is of an overlay network via a first network access and the second network access is the underlay network. See also paragraphs [0069-0072].
The Examiner notes that Faccin disclose of access through a second network and thus the selection indicates that an access is via an underlay network.
Nonetheless, to the extent it is considered that the request does not indicate that an access type is via an underlay network, the Examiner finds that it was well known indicate access via an underlay or at least a secondary type of network. For example, Baskaran, as set forth in paragraph [0043] discloses of access via a non-3GPP access network which is a different communication mode from the standard 3GPP (overlay). Thus, Baskaran shows that it was known to access the AMF via an alternative access network (e.g. non-3GPP) rather than via a 3GPP access network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to indicate access to the overlay network via an underlay network. The Examiner finds that both Faccin and Baskaran disclose of both 3GPP and non-3GPP network access to the AMF. In addition, Faccin disclose of specifying a network slice for the user equipment. Since Faccin discloses that it was known to access the network via e.g. a second network (non-3GPP) as well as the registration via a second network access, then a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that it would have also been obvious to indicate access the network using an underlay network. For example, Baskaran discloses it was known to request access to the AMF via a non-3GPP network for the purpose of registration. Therefore, the teachings represents known methods and would have yielded a predictable result to a person of ordinary skill in the art since Baskaran discloses of a method of accessing underlay network.
receive, by the AMF from the NSSF, one or more network slice identifiers of the one or more allowed network slices for the access of the wireless device to the overlay network via the underlay network.
Faccin discloses in paragraph [0074], “[t]he NSSF returns to the current AMF the Allowed NSSAI for the applicable Access Type”. See also paragraph [0230]. As set forth above, the combination of Faccin and Baskaran disclose access the overlay network via the underlying network. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as set forth above, that the access to the network slices is via the underlay network. As explained by Baskaran, the UE access the network via an underlay network. See paragraphs [0048 and 0052-0053] of Baskaran.
Claim(s) 6-10 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faccin et al. US Patent Pub. 2021/0297859 in view of Baskaran et al. US Patent Pub. 2020/0014535 and further in view of Atarius US Patent Pub. 2024/0276360.
Regarding claim 6:
The method of claim 1, further comprising sending, by the AMF to a policy and charging control function (PCF), a policy association establishment message comprising the one or more network slice identifiers for the wireless device.
Faccin discloses of a policy control function component (see paragraph [0039] and [0106]). As set forth in paragraph [0163], the AMF initiates a PCF communication. See also paragraphs [0152] and [0161] in which policy association is used.
The Examiner notes that to the extent it is considered that policy association establishment message of Faccin does not include a network slice identifier, the Examiner finds that Atarius discloses in paragraph [0124] that the AMF may perform access and mobility management policy association establishment by sending to the Policy Control Function (PCF) information about the serving network. This information includes the Allowed NSSAI, and Access Type.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to send a policy association message. As set forth by Atarius, the PCF is responsible for unified policy framework which provides policy rules and access subscription information. See paragraph [0061]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to send a message to the PCF so that the PCF can transmit the UE policy information regarding the network. The Examiner notes that the use of a PCF is a known methods and would have yielded a predictable result to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7:
The method of claim 6, wherein the policy association establishment message indicates that the access of the wireless device to the overlay network is via the underlay network.
As set forth above, Faccin and Baskaran disclose of access via an underlay network. In addition Faccin discloses communication with a PCF.
In addition, as set forth above in claim 6, with respect to the policy association establishment message, as set forth in paragraph [0159], Atarius discloses policy information directed to a URSP rule indicates that the data connection with the first network slice should be established over a non-3GPP access network.
As explained above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to send a policy association message. As set forth by Atarius, the PCF is responsible for unified policy framework which provides policy rules and access subscription information. See paragraph [0061]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to send a message to the PCF so that the PCF can transmit the UE policy information regarding the network. The Examiner notes that the use of a PCF is a known methods and would have yielded a predictable result to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8:
The method of claim 6, further comprising receiving, by the AMF, a policy association establishment response comprising policy information.
Faccin as disclosed in paragraph [0164-0165] discloses of receiving a PCF message which includes updated Mobile Restrictions. See also paragraph [0170] which discloses of PCF policy association information and paragraph [0181] which discloses of receiving Npcf_UEPolicyControl Create Response.
As set forth in paragraph [0126], Atarius discloses the PCF retrieves the UE policy information and transmits that towards the UE via the AMF. See paragraphs [0124-0125].
As explained above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to send a policy association message. As set forth by Atarius, the PCF is responsible for unified policy framework which provides policy rules and access subscription information. See paragraph [0061]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to send a message to the PCF so that the PCF can transmit the UE policy information regarding the network. The Examiner notes that the use of a PCF is a known methods and would have yielded a predictable result to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9:
The method of claim 8, wherein the policy information further comprises supported features for a UE route selection policy (URSP).
Faccin, in paragraph [0036] and associated Table discloses it was known to include a UE Route Selection Policy (USRP).
In addition, as set forth in paragraph [0159], Atarius discloses policy information directed to a URSP rule indicates that the data connection with the first network slice should be established over a non-3GPP access network.
As explained above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to send a policy association message. As set forth by Faccin, it was already known to include a URSP. In addition, as set forth by Atarius, the PCF is responsible for unified policy framework which provides policy rules and access subscription information. See paragraph [0061]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to send a message to the PCF so that the PCF can transmit the UE policy information regarding the network. The Examiner notes that the use of a PCF is a known methods and would have yielded a predictable result to a person of ordinary skill in the art. As explained by Atarius in paragraph [0159], the URSP rules is used to indicate that the data connection with the first network slice should be established over a non-3GPP network. As explained above, both Faccin and Baskaran disclose of connection over a non-3GPP network.
Regarding claim 10:
The method of claim 9, wherein the URSP comprises one or more data network names (DNNs) that the wireless device is allowed for an underlay access type.
Faccin, in paragraph [0036] and associated Table discloses it was known to include a data network name (DNN). In addition, see paragraph [0035-0041] of Atarius which discloses that the USRP rules includes a data network name for an underlay access type.
As explained above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to send a policy association message. As set forth by Atarius, the PCF is responsible for unified policy framework which provides policy rules and access subscription information. See paragraph [0061]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to send a message to the PCF so that the PCF can transmit the UE policy information regarding the network. The Examiner notes that the use of a PCF is a known methods and would have yielded a predictable result to a person of ordinary skill in the art. As explained by Atarius in paragraph [0159], the URSP rules is used to indicate that the data connection with the first network slice should be established over a non-3GPP network. As explained above, both Faccin and Baskaran disclose of connection over a non-3GPP network.
Regarding claim 16:
The AMF of claim 11, wherein the instructions further cause the AMF to send, to a policy and charging control function (PCF), a policy association establishment message comprising the one or more network slice identifiers for the wireless device.
Faccin discloses of a policy control function component (see paragraph [0039] and [0106]). As set forth in paragraph [0163], the AMF initiates a PCF communication. See also paragraphs [0152] and [0161] in which policy association is used.
The Examiner notes that to the extent it is considered that policy association establishment message of Faccin does not include a network slice identifier, the Examiner finds that Atarius discloses in paragraph [0124] that the AMF may perform access and mobility management policy association establishment by sending to the Policy Control Function (PCF) information about the serving network. This information includes the Allowed NSSAI, and Access Type.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to send a policy association message. As set forth by Atarius, the PCF is responsible for unified policy framework which provides policy rules and access subscription information. See paragraph [0061]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to send a message to the PCF so that the PCF can transmit the UE policy information regarding the network. The Examiner notes that the use of a PCF is a known methods and would have yielded a predictable result to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17:
The AMF of claim 16, wherein the policy association establishment message indicates that the access of the wireless device to the overlay network is via the underlay network.
As set forth above, Faccin and Baskaran disclose of access via an underlay network. In addition Faccin discloses communication with a PCF.
In addition, as set forth above in claim 6, with respect to the policy association establishment message, as set forth in paragraph [0159], Atarius discloses policy information directed to a URSP rule indicates that the data connection with the first network slice should be established over a non-3GPP access network.
As explained above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to send a policy association message. As set forth by Atarius, the PCF is responsible for unified policy framework which provides policy rules and access subscription information. See paragraph [0061]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to send a message to the PCF so that the PCF can transmit the UE policy information regarding the network. The Examiner notes that the use of a PCF is a known methods and would have yielded a predictable result to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18:
The AMF of claim 16, further comprising receiving, by the AMF, a policy association establishment response comprising policy information.
Faccin as disclosed in paragraph [0164-0165] discloses of receiving a PCF message which includes updated Mobile Restrictions. See also paragraph [0170] which discloses of PCF policy association information and paragraph [0181] which discloses of receiving Npcf_UEPolicyControl Create Response.
As set forth in paragraph [0126], Atarius discloses the PCF retrieves the UE policy information and transmits that towards the UE via the AMF. See paragraphs [0124-0125].
As explained above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to send a policy association message. As set forth by Atarius, the PCF is responsible for unified policy framework which provides policy rules and access subscription information. See paragraph [0061]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to send a message to the PCF so that the PCF can transmit the UE policy information regarding the network. The Examiner notes that the use of a PCF is a known methods and would have yielded a predictable result to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19:
The AMF of claim 18, wherein the policy information further comprises supported features for a UE route selection policy (URSP).
Faccin, in paragraph [0036] and associated Table discloses it was known to include a UE Route Selection Policy (USRP).
In addition, as set forth in paragraph [0159], Atarius discloses policy information directed to a URSP rule indicates that the data connection with the first network slice should be established over a non-3GPP access network.
As explained above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to send a policy association message. As set forth by Faccin, it was already known to include a URSP. In addition, as set forth by Atarius, the PCF is responsible for unified policy framework which provides policy rules and access subscription information. See paragraph [0061]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to send a message to the PCF so that the PCF can transmit the UE policy information regarding the network. The Examiner notes that the use of a PCF is a known methods and would have yielded a predictable result to a person of ordinary skill in the art. As explained by Atarius in paragraph [0159], the URSP rules is used to indicate that the data connection with the first network slice should be established over a non-3GPP network. As explained above, both Faccin and Baskaran disclose of connection over a non-3GPP network.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OVIDIO ESCALANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-7537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 6:00 AM to 3:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/Ovidio Escalante/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights